Dear Miniapolis, I'm writing you about the Andrea Liberovici's page. I'm working on the Italian page and english one, 'cause I know very well the work of this italian composer and director. I saw there where many issues from wikipedia, and in the italian one everything is all right now. I really don't know how wrote the english page, I edit and improve the english page, with the purpose to contribute to wikipedia. Can you please tell how to fix the bio issue? I thank you in advance --Irenenovello (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Irene. The English Wikipedia has a notability guideline for musicians, and I'm not sure that the subject of the article meets that guideline yet. On the article's talk page, you refer to yourself as a "fan"; unfortunately, being a fan is incompatible with the neutral point of view required for an encyclopedia article. The article's only image is a snapshot, uploaded by you to Commons as your own work, which leads me to believe that you are connected to the article's subject (as the article is tagged). Since your only substantial contributions on en.WP have been to this article, you should be aware of WP's Terms of Use concerning paid editing; specifically, if you are receiving payment for any edits, you must disclose this in at least one of several ways. I hope this helps. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Miniapolis for starting the copyedit on Chak De India. I needed to give myself a bit of a break before moving Nina Davuluri up to a GA (I tend to do this with articles to help give myself a fresh point of view). I had brought Chak De to GA a few years ago. I recently looked over it in consideration for a future FAC and realized that it needed a complete overhaul. I cleaned it up quite a bit and requested the copy edit simply to bring it back to GA level. I realize that in the future I will have to expand it great for an FA. After your copy edit, I will probably let it sit for awhile and go back to the Nina Davuluri article - again to give myself a fresh point of view. You are a fabulous editor -- any thoughts or comments that you have will be well appreciated. And I will work in both cases not to override your edits - simply to expand upon them to improve the articles. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help; it's a very good, very interesting article. I should be finished tomorrow or Saturday, and it helps that there's no rush. Please feel free to tweak any edits; Bollywood isn't my area of expertise, and I'm trying not to introduce errors. FWIW, it's getting an FAC copyedit for when the time comes :-). Good luck with Nina and all the best, Miniapolis 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks and please take your time. When it comes to GA or FAC upgrades, I go about it very, very slowly as I like to take my time to think. And thanks for the FAC upgrade now - I just felt that I wanted another set of eyes to look at it before I took that step. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That was fast - thank you for the copy edit, looks great! I have one question about the use of Template:TOC limit. I suspect that you did it to deal with photo alignment. I suspect, however, that this will not sit as well with film editors. Would you mind if I removed the template? -Classicfilms (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why the film editors would object to {{TOC limit}}, since it only affects the display of the table of contents, but feel free to do what you want. In accordance with MOS:ACCESS#Headings, I changed the bolded "headers" in the critical-reception section to level-4 headers and added the TOC limit so they would continue not displaying in the table of contents; FAC reviewers will probably notice non-MOS header formatting. All the best, Miniapolis 19:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh...I see. You are quite right about the CR section headers - so I tweaked them a bit and removed the template. Take a look and tell me what you think. It really is a great series of edits otherwise - thank you so much for the time.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Another possible solution might be reformatting the sections to match something like this - Slumdog Millionaire.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read the Manual of Style accessibility section I linked to above: "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use {{TOC limit}} instead". That's what I did; if you don't mind those sections displaying in the TOC, use the level-4 section markup. Why don't the "film editors" like that template? It makes no sense to me. All the best, Miniapolis 19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict - didn't realize you were trying to post. You are right about the MOS - I just deleted the headings and at some point, I'll rework the reviews. I am guessing they won't because normally the lead comes first and film editors (at least when I have worked on Bollywood articles) tend to be somewhat particular- I don't think I've seen a Bollywood article that has the contents that way. I could reinstate the TOC if you really think it helps - I'm thinking the better thing to do is to simply get rid of the headers and rewrite the review sections since it is somewhat long. Perhaps that will help fix the issues. Let me know if you think this isn't a good idea. Thanks again for all of your feedback, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict)SM has no level-4 headings; it has separate level-2 sections for box office and critical reception, so its layout differs from CDI. If you're more comfortable with that layout change it, but SM is B-class and CDI is a GA so I think your layout is okay. Miniapolis 20:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You are really good at this - I am still learning to think about how to see the grades of articles. Actually there really isn't a need to have the divisions and the quotes were too long. So I went ahead and trimmed the sections like so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chak_De!_India#Critical_response

That pretty much solves the problem. Thank you again for the help -- when I finally do do the upgrade for FA, I will leave a note and let you know, you have a lot of insight into formatting issues that even after 10 years I am still trying to figure out. I want to do everything possible to make it an easy FAC. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) If your sourcing is good (and it seems to be), you shouldn't have a problem. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 20:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Same to you, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And just as a P.S. - I just reread this and realized that I mis-read your edit as stating that there was a problem with level-4 headers - which is why I replaced them with bold (which I now realize is what you replaced) - so it looked like a revert. That is completely my fault, apologies - I read your post too quickly, I should have read it more carefully. I was actually pretty confused, at that moment. Anyway, I like the product, and appreciate the help. Sorry for the mixup -Classicfilms (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) No problem. I've been copyediting articles here for a few years, and am always learning new things; that's what keeps it fun. All the best, Miniapolis 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I’m puzzled by my current copy-edit situation and thought you might consider helping me resolve it. On August 27th, I requested a copy edit for the Cadet Nurse Corps article; the work began on September 10th and was suspended on the 13th. The do not edit tag was removed on the 16th, although the request still shows working - no word from the person doing the copyediting. Thanks! Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests Pendright (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we're all volunteers, and RL sometimes gets in the way of WP. The copyeditor hasn't edited since the 13th; I trust everything is okay with them, because I was sidelined myself for almost a week last month by emergency surgery. Feel free to ping them, and if they don't come back someone else will do the copyedit. Sorry for the delay, but we're chronically shorthanded. All the best, Miniapolis 01:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The GOCE's general rule is to ping copy editors after a week of inactivity in order to keep things moving. A few days of inactivity (or other on-wiki activity) is to be expected for volunteers with real lives. Our average wait time for fulfilled requests in 2014 was 31 days, with only a handful (less than 5% of the 489 articles we handled) taking longer than 60 days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both! Pendright (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The copy-editor has explained on his talk page that he plans to continue the c/e on Monday; I requested an update there using out template but reverted when I notice the thread and reply. I've noted this on the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)